Residential Air Pollution and Associations with Wheeze and Shortness of Breath in Adults: A Combined Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data from Two Large European Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research examining associations between air pollution exposure and respiratory symptoms in adults has generally been inconclusive. This may be related in part to sample size issues, which also preclude analysis in potentially vulnerable subgroups. OBJECTIVES: We estimated associations between air pollution exposures and the prevalence of wheeze and shortness of breath using harmonized baseline data from two very large European cohorts, Lifelines (2006-2013) and UK Biobank (2006-2010). Our aim was also to determine whether the relationship between air pollution and respiratory symptom prevalence differed between individuals with different characteristics. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses explored associations between prevalence of self-reported wheeze and shortness of breath and annual mean particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <2.5μm, 2.5-10μm, and <10μm (PM2.5, PMcoarse, and PM10, respectively) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations at place of residence using logistic regression. Subgroup analyses and tests for interaction were performed for age, sex, smoking status, household income, obesity status, and asthma status. RESULTS: All PM exposures were associated with respiratory symptoms based on single-pollutant models, with the largest associations seen for PM2.5 with prevalence of wheezing {odds ratio (OR)=1.16 per 5μg/m³ [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11, 1.21]} and shortness of breath [OR=1.61 per 5μg/m³ (95% CI: 1.45, 1.78)]. The association between shortness of breath and a 5-μg/m³ increment in PM2.5 was significantly higher for individuals from lower-[OR=1.73 (95% CI: 1.52, 1.97)] versus higher-income households [OR=1.31 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.55); p-interaction=0.005), whereas the association between PM2.5 and wheeze was limited to lower-income participants [OR=1.30 (95% CI: 1.22, 1.38) vs. OR=1.02; (95% CI: 0.96, 1.08); p-interaction<0.001]. Exposure to NO2 also showed positive associations with wheeze and shortness of breath. CONCLUSION: Exposure to PM and NO2 air pollution was associated with the prevalence of wheeze and shortness of breath in this large study, with stronger associations between PM2.5 and both outcomes among lower- versus higher-income participants. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1353.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".